Creepshots: Microsoft discovers an on-campus peeping tom

Stairs, escalators were favorite "upskirt" locations.

On July 24, 2013, a Microsoft vendor employee working at the company's RedWest campus in Redmond had a piece of good fortune—he found a Muvi USB video camera just lying in the footpath between buildings. He picked up the camera, only later taking a look at the footage on the device, which revealed that his good fortune was actually evidence of a crime. The Muvi camera contained "upskirt" video footage of women climbing stairs or escalators—or sometimes just standing in checkout lines—and some of it had been shot on Microsoft's campus.

The vendor employee reported the incident to Microsoft Global Security, who took possession of the camera on July 26. To find the camera's owner, two Global Security investigators pulled up Microsoft's internal security camera footage covering the RedWest footpath. They began by locating the moment when the vendor employee walked into the frame, paused, and bent down to retrieve the camera off the ground. Investigators then rewound the footage to see who had dropped it.

At the 11:24am mark, they saw a man in a collared shirt and reddish pants walk out of a RedWest building and walk along the footpath. Then, at 11:25am, the vendor employee appeared and picked up the camera. At 11:26am, the man in the reddish pants suddenly returned to the picture. According to a later report from the Redmond Police Department, he was "rushing" back to the RedWest building he had just left and appeared "nervous, frantically looking around." He eventually used a keycard to re-enter the RedWest building.

The RedWest campus, seen from above.

Google Maps

Global Security suspected that this was the camera's owner, attempting to retrieve his property after the sudden sinking realization that he no longer had possession of it. To find the man, the security team simply pulled keycard records from the building and cross-checked them with the time on the security camera footage; they IDed their suspect as another Microsoft vendor employee, thirtysomething Seattle resident Leonard Raymundo.

Raymundo allegedly used a camera similar to this Muvi model.

On August 15, with their investigation complete, one of the investigators met with Raymundo and escorted him out of the building. On the walk out, the man allegedly told the investigator that he had spent his leisure time over the last year visiting voyeuristic upskirt websites, that he had started shooting such footage himself, and that he had, rather incredibly, visited the sites from his Microsoft-assigned Asus laptop and had downloaded his own footage to said laptop.

Microsoft turned the case over to the local police. In December, a Redmond detective obtained a search warrant to search the Muvi camera and the Asus laptop, finding 86 upskirt videos featuring 93 victims. "None of the victims appear aware they are being filmed and are not intending to participate in filming," the detective noted in documents seen by Ars Technica. As for Raymundo, the detective noted that his face "is captured on film nearly 50 times throughout the collection of Muvi videos."

On March 28, 2014, Raymundo was charged in state court with felony voyeurism. Washington State's anti-voyeurism law, which went into effect in 2003, says:

(2) A person commits the crime of voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films:

(a) Another person without that person's knowledge and consent while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or

(b) The intimate areas of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.

In requesting that Raymundo's bail be set at $50,000, the prosecutor noted that "the defendant appeared to plan ahead and selected his filming locations carefully to ensure an abundance of potential victims. He also downloaded the videos to his work laptop without apparent fear of consequences."

Seattle's KIRO TV station, which first reported the story of Raymundo's prosecution, notes that he will enter a plea in the case during a court hearing on April 10.

On a side note, why do women wear skirts and dresses? Even outside the small possibility of having your privacy violated, anything other than pants-like clothing for your lower body seems very impractical.

It's when I read articles like this that I pity any poor aliens observing us.

The whole concept of filming women from below while they are walking about, minding their own business, seems like nothing more than waste of time to me... and I'm human. Can you imagine what something like that would seem to someone who does not understand us?

This guy's defender just has to argue that his client wasn't sexually aroused by the videos. "Your honor, my client is being mischaracterized. He isn't a voyeur, he's an amateur anthropologist."

On a side note, why do women wear skirts and dresses? Even outside the small possibility of having your privacy violated, anything other than pants-like clothing for your lower body seems very impractical.

If everyone only judged a product based on a utilitarian scale, the world would be a boring place.

KIRO 7 et. al. jumped all over this because it makes for great clickbait ad revenue. The story doesn't belong on Ars.

The increasing miniaturization of tools like USB cameras--and their abuse--certainly seems like an issue worth emphasizing. It's the same reason we've covered many stories about creeps who spy on people through their own webcams. And this was a pretty significant incident...

The 'recent case' was in Mass. When the guy was charged, the judge pointed out that the statute they were using was real specific about clothed vs unclothed. He had no choice but to throw the charges out. Pretty much embassased everybody involved in State Law. A new statute was designed and passed and signed into law in about 3 days. surely a record turnaround for the local lawmakers.

Wasn't there just a recent case where someone's conviction was overturned because the people were technically dressed?

I'd search for it, but I don't really want to search anything with "upskirt" at work... :-P

You may be thinking of this:

BOSTON - A man who took cell phone photos up the skirts of women riding the Boston subway did not violate state law because the women were not nude or partially nude, Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday.

Ain't that some shit? My guess is that the women had clothes on so as not to be naked. They didn't expect some pervert to slip a camera under them and grab snapshots of what they thought was protected from public purview.

On a side note, why do women wear skirts and dresses? Even outside the small possibility of having your privacy violated, anything other than pants-like clothing for your lower body seems very impractical.

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but I'm guessing a lot of people are going to take your comment at face value and see that there seems to be a hint of victim-blaming in there. I think I understand what you mean (something closer to " it seems like too much risk for the reward") but it sounds like you're saying "geez, they really should stop wearing skirts if they don't want this to happen.

Like I said I think you're probably not meaning it that way, but I'd edit your comment for clarity.

Topic: You'd think internet pr0n would have eliminated this stuff. Some need to take the pictures themselves?

/shrug. I'm not a doctor, psychiatrist, or a psychologist. Just thinking out loud:

(Unfortuantely) I think of it as the same as any other hobby. I enjoy watching people play piano, to the point where I want to learn how to play the piano myself. I think psychologically you want to be a part of it all.

This is disgusting. WTF is wrong with people? How can you not know this is a terrible idea and that you'll get caught eventually? I mean he was obviously in fear of being caught once he lost it, but was that feeling not present the entire time he was violating people's personal space and privacy?

BOSTON - A man who took cell phone photos up the skirts of women riding the Boston subway did not violate state law because the women were not nude or partially nude, Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday.

Ain't that some shit? My guess is that the women had clothes on so as not to be naked. They didn't expect some pervert to slip a camera under them and grab snapshots of what they thought was protected from public purview.

Yup, that's pretty much the ruling. That the law was specific in what it made illegal. Of course, point of order: the very next day, they had legislation waiting that made doing it illegal. It's one of those stories that sounds more crazy than it really is.

An old law said (x). Guy accused didn't do (x), he did (y), which is morally reprehensible, but does not fit what the law said about (x). He is ruled innocent of violating (x). The next day, (y) is made illegal.

A good example of a judge following the law and the system updating the laws to cover new situations, rather than trying to contort the old law to fit whatever definition you want. All in all, that's the way law should be done.

The 'recent case' was in Mass. When the guy was charged, the judge pointed out that the statute they were using was real specific about clothed vs unclothed. He had no choice but to throw the charges out. Pretty much embassased everybody involved in State Law. A new statute was designed and passed and signed into law in about 3 days. surely a record turnaround for the local lawmakers.

Thanks (to you and the others...) that was the one I was thinking of. I vaguely remembered that it had been tossed because of a loophole, but I'd forgotten the specifics.

This guy's defender just has to argue that his client wasn't sexually aroused by the videos. "Your honor, my client is being mischaracterized. He isn't a voyeur, he's an amateur anthropologist."

The standard is reasonable doubt.

Quote:

On a side note, why do women wear skirts and dresses? Even outside the small possibility of having your privacy violated, anything other than pants-like clothing for your lower body seems very impractical.

Why do any humans wear anything but shorts, t-shirts, sweatpants, or sweatshirts (as appropriate to climate)?

On a side note, why do women wear skirts and dresses? Even outside the small possibility of having your privacy violated, anything other than pants-like clothing for your lower body seems very impractical.

In the words of a guy that I know who wears skirts:

"They are more comfortable."

I have to say, I'm a little jealous of women getting to wear skirts. Men can't wear shorts as a professional attire, yet women wearing skirts are sometimes more favorably looked upon than those in pants by the fashion police. In the summer, having a breezy, ventilated outfit must be awesome.

On a side note, why do women wear skirts and dresses? Even outside the small possibility of having your privacy violated, anything other than pants-like clothing for your lower body seems very impractical.

In the words of a guy that I know who wears skirts:

"They are more comfortable."

I have to say, I'm a little jealous of women getting to wear skirts. Men can't wear shorts as a professional attire, yet women wearing skirts are sometimes more favorably looked upon than those in pants by the fashion police. In the summer, having a breezy, ventilated outfit must be awesome.

Given the difficulty of changing culture (especially RE:GENDER ROLES), I'm a trifle surprised that there hasn't been more R&D on using all those fancy new textiles and material-science whizzbang to build boring-classic-suits that covertly ventilate themselves as the wearer moves.